Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (34609)	5/18/2005 1:53:01 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

You see any problems or contradictions here? Message 21331561 Hemp, hemp, hemp. Doesn't it take O2 to get energy from that or anything resulting from that? Doesn't that result in CO2 contributing to global warming? Isn't nuclear better? X: I don't give a **** what you think. Got it?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (34609)	5/24/2005 4:47:04 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

Round 2: Hemp can produce 10 times more methanol than corn. So you're planning on replacing the entire rolling stock of the US? Hemp fuel burns clean. Petroleum causes acid rain due to sulfur pollution. You ever hear of "sweet crude"? Like "Saudi sweet crude"? It's petroleum that is low in sulfur content. The sulfur is required to be removed from gasoline. The use of hemp fuel does not contribute to global warming. You take CO2 out of the atmosphere to produce hemp. Then you burn the hemp or resulting product. Net effect: No reduction in CO2.